by Nicole Capobianco

As a member of Occupy Wall Street since its beginning 7 months ago, I have been doing the balancing act between being enrolled as a full time student and being an activist. I find myself to be a small but important part of a much larger collective, one in which I believe in wholeheartedly. So what do you believe? Most of my classmates seem shockingly apathetic these days. Meanwhile, I’m keeping track of the latest right we’ve lost, the newest surveillance technique that is being used, and how the illusion of freedom melts away into an ugly reality. With that ugliness also comes my individual political will to act against injustice and instigate change for the betterment of society.

I have 25 hours of class a week. That’s 8 classes and 18 credits this semester. The work for those classes is an additional 25 hours, and my job takes up between 14-20 hours a week. Put that together and you quickly realize that even eating and sleeping healthily takes a hit from all of this activity. The rest of my time since September has been devoted to furthering the Occupy movement in various ways, as this cause has become a huge part of me. I therefore decided to compile some advice for my fellow students, in the hopes that they will use this as a tool to engage in activism while still keeping up with their commitment to academics.

The core of time management has been balance. When I began this journey in September, I had already chosen my semester’s schedule and my work schedule. Needless to say, it didn’t play to my advantage. I was doing too much, and I ended up being sick three times in a three month period. Winter break approached and I changed my schedule to one that would work best to accommodate my activism. I started cooking my food again instead of ordering out. I started to use my weekends as a time of flexibility to do school work, freelance work, or movement work. I told myself I wouldn’t miss class time to protest, realizing that I had been locked into mortgaging my future through loans that brought me to school. It sometimes seems like school is irrelevant when thinking about revolution, but this is my reality and so balance became an important part of how I manage to take the streets. And, hey, I still made the dean’s list!

The second way to be a productive student and activist is to treat campus as if it is an outreach hub. Students have a vested interest in the issues of Occupy Wall Street, even though many of them don’t know it. It’s about each person realizing that there are various things that oppress them, and that they have a stake in the future of this movement. Many students live in a bubble, with thoughts such as “I still have two more years till I graduate and have to get a job” and “This education will give me the connections and skills to pay off these loans easily” being paramount in their minds.

When challenged about Occupy, others say stuff like “My parents paid for my education upfront so I don’t have any loans to worry about.” Or, my favorite, “My parents are part of the 1%, and protestors don’t know what they are protesting about.” Whether it is subtle or loud, I can find one thousand and one ways to loop the conversation back into one about the various issues contained within Occupy and the general importance of dissent within groups of young people, like us, students.

One of the most important things you can do as a student activist is to be honest with your professors. You would be surprised how many of them will support you, even if you are involved in political actions that do not align with their personal politics. If you plan on going to an action that has the possibility of arrest, contact your professors beforehand – and ideally in person. Explain to them that you are going to the action because it is something you believe in and because it is your right to do so, and if an assignment is due, let them know that you have a classmate ready who can present your work so it is not late.

The professors that I have approached have been overwhelmingly positive with words of encouragement and support. When Liberty Plaza was evicted and I was out all night, I texted my professor at about 8 AM to let him know that I wouldn’t make my 9.30 AM class. He told me to simply get some sleep. Teachers are part of the 99% too, and they often respect your right to redress your grievances – and that you’re doing something for the greater good – even if it’s technically inconsistent with the rules of their higher education establishment.

Overall, the best advice I can give is to focus on the things that you can do. You could spend all day making up a list of things you can’t accomplish and things that can’t change, but your willingness to act will make a difference in the struggle. Know your power as a student, as someone who made the conscious choice to learn, and as someone who knows that education is a right of all human beings. Don’t wait until later. Later comes a full time job, more commitments, relationships, more excuses to justify apathy and indifference. Most importantly, do not be afraid.

On May Day I will be on strike during one of my final exams, and later that night when my 5 PM till midnight work shift is due to begin. We run the world that they own, and they enslave us with debt. As a student it is depressing to think that I haven’t spent one day of my adult life without negative dollar signs above my head. We have the power to change these structures. Join me, rise up, and occupy everything!

Nicole Capobianco is a freelance photographer and web designer, facilitator of the Radical Education Collective, and a student at the Pratt Institute seeking a Bachelor of Fine Arts degree in Photography. She lives in Brooklyn, NY. She considers herself a collaborator with an aesthetic eye for composition and design. Nicole is an artist, a thinker, and a revolutionary who has been involved with Occupy Wall Street since day one. She enjoys reading, dialogue, good food, making art, and being by the ocean. Her photography can be seen on her website: nicolecapobianco.com/. Her Twitter handle is: @nbcapobia

[..]

by Nicole Powers

We’ve been busting out editorial for the SG Blog out of investigative journalist Greg Palast’s NYC office for the past few weeks and the continuing story of BP’s Deepwater Horizon blow-out has literally been blowing up around us after a whistleblower has come forward with damning new evidence against the oil company.

In a previous SG interview with Greg, we learned that the oil rig incident that occurred in the Gulf on April 20, 2010 wasn’t an unforeseen accident, as BP claimed, but was almost identical to a blow-out that occurred on BP’s rig off the coast of Azerbaijan in the Caspian Sea in September 2008. The cause was the same in both cases: the use of cost-saving quick dry cement.

If BP had been more open about the incident in 2008, and had stopped using this “penny-pinching cement process” the worst oil spill in US history would probably never have happened and the eleven oil workers who perished on the Gulf rig as a result of the blow-out would most likely still be alive.

In a post published today on Ecowatch Greg writes:

We have learned this week that BP failed to notify the International Association of Drilling Contractors (IADC) about the failure of the cement. (British companies report incidents as minor as a hammer dropped.) Notification would have alerted Gulf cement contractor Halliburton that the process of adding nitrogen to cement posed unforeseen dangers.

In fact, this past December, BP attempted to place the blame and costs of the Gulf disaster on Halliburton, the oil services company that injected quick-dry cement into the well under the Deepwater Horizon. BP told a federal court that Halliburton concealed a computer model that would show that, under certain conditions, the cement could fail disastrously.

Following the Deepwater Horizon explosion, it became clear that nitrogen-laced mud can leave “channels” in the cement, allowing gas to escape and blow out the well-bore cap. However, that would have become clearer, and risks better assessed, had Halliburton and regulators known of the particulars of the Caspian blow-out.

We have also just learned that the cement casing itself appears to have cracked apart in the Caspian Sea. The sea, we were told, “was bubbling all around [from boiling methane]. You’re even scared to launch a life boat, it may sink.”

This exposed another problem with deepwater drilling. BP had promoted Blow-Out Preventers (BOPs) as a last line of defense in case of a blow-out. But if the casing shatters, the BOPs could be useless.

BP has gone to extraordinary lengths to conceal the story of the first blow-out, and for good reason: If the company deliberately withheld the information that it knew “quick-dry” cement had failed yet continued to use it, the 11 deaths on its Gulf rig were not an unexpected accident but could be considered negligent homicide.

Furthermore, had BP fessed up to the past failure of their drilling methods when seeking permission to expand their drilling operations in US waters, their activities would more than likely have been somewhat curtailed. So instead, they lied by omission to our government under oath:

BP and the industry conducted a successful lobbying campaign to expand deep water drilling. BP’s Vice-President for operations in the Gulf, David Rainey, testified before Congress in November 2009, five months before the Deepwater Horizon explosion that, “Releases from oil and gas operations are rare.” Rainey assured Congressmen that reliable “well control techniques” such as cement caps will prevent a deep water disaster.

Rainey made no mention to Congress of the blow-out in the Caspian Sea which occurred a year before his testimony.

In the two years following the spill, BP has dumped a lot of resources into a public relations effort to clean up their reputation as opposed to the actual ongoing effect of the spill (we’ve all seen those very expensive and slick looking TV ads). It’s therefore no surprise that this week Al Jazeera posted a story about how the high incidence of “horribly deformed” fish found in the Gulf is alarming fishermen and scientists alike. Eyeless shrimp or clawless crab for dinner anyone?

About Greg Palast
Greg Palast’s reports can be seen on BBC Television’s Newsnight. He is a Puffin Foundation Writing Fellow for investigative reporting, and is the author of the New York Times bestsellers The Best Democracy Money Can Buy and Armed Madhouse.

His latest book, Vultures’ Picnic: In Pursuit of Petroleum Pigs, Power Pirates and High-Finance Predators, which he describes as “a tale of oil, sex, shoes, radiation and investigative reporting,” is available now. Visit GregPalast.com and VulturesPicnic.com for more info.

Greg Palast and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. are the co-authors of a comic-style voter guide called Steal Back Your Vote. They are also collaborating on a new book and DVD entitled Election Games: Billionaires & Ballot Bandits, which will expose the one percent’s attempt to steal the 2012 election through “hidden cash and vote heists.” Support their investigation via Kickstarter here.

Related Posts:
Greg Palast – Steal Back Your Vote 2012 Part 1: Understanding Super PACs
Vultures’ Picnic: We Figured Out Who Murdered Jake
Uber-Vultures: The Billionaires Who Would Pick Our President
Tokyo Electric To Build US Nuclear Plants: The No-BS Info On Japan’s Disastrous Nuclear Operators
Stick Your Damn Hand In It: 20th Birthday of the Exxon Valdez Lie
Obama is a two-faced liar. Aw-RIGHT!
Why An Asshole Is Always In Charge
The Steal You Won’t See
SG Interview: Greg Palast – Steal Back Your Vote
SuicideGirls Steal Back Your Vote

by David Seaman / video segment produced by Lindsey Miller

SG’s political correspondent David Seaman contemplates CISPA – a SOPA-like Big Brother bill that is gaining traction right now – and decides it may be time to take drastic measures!

In case you’re not familiar with CISPA, the Minnesota Daily explains that:

H.R. 3532, similarly to SOPA, emphasizes digital piracy and file sharing, while also considering the infringement of intellectual property as a security threat…Under CISPA, Internet service providers and other companies could be forced to share user data with government agencies.

The EFF strongly opposes the bill because:

H.R. 3523, also known as the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011, would let companies spy on users and share private information with the federal government and other companies with near-total immunity from civil and criminal liability. It effectively creates a “cybersecurity” exemption to all existing laws.

There are almost no restrictions on what can be collected and how it can be used, provided a company can claim it was motivated by “cybersecurity purposes.”

Democratic Underground cautions:

CISPA gives private companies the ability to collect and share information about their customers or users with immunity — meaning we cannot sue them for doing so, and they cannot be charged with any crimes.

And Mashable warns:

The bill already has over 100 co-sponsors and the backing of some of Silicon Valley’s most prominent companies, including Microsoft and Facebook — support which SOPA never enjoyed.

Over half a million people have signed a petition to Stop CISCA. Add your name to it here.

A summary of the CISPA text can be viewed on the Library of Congress website.

[..]

by David Seaman

[..]

by Nicole Powers

Thursday, March 29, 2012 was a landmark day in the fight for freedom as we know it. A group of journalists and activists gave opening statements in a federal lawsuit seeking an injunction against the implementation of key clauses in the National Defense Authorization Act, which has shattered many of the founding principles of the United States.

Chris Hedges (a Pulitzer Prize-winning ex-New York Times reporter) initially filed the lawsuit. It was subsequently amended to become a multi-plaintiff case, with six further names signing on for round one of what is hoped will be a multi-stage legal action. Dubbed the Freedom Seven, alongside Hedges the list of named plaintiffs now includes Daniel Ellsberg (a former US military analyst who is best known for releasing the Pentagon Papers), Professor Noam Chomsky (a renowned academic, activist, and writer), Birgitta Jonsdottir (an Icelandic politician and pro-WikiLeaks campaigner), Alexa O’Brien (a journalist and founder of the US Day of Rage electoral reform campaign), Kai Wargalla (the founder of Occupy London), and Tangerine Bolen (the founder of activist and alternative media organization Revolution Truth).

Opening statements were heard by Judge Katherine Forrest at the US District Court Building at 500 Pearl Street in Manhattan. Hedges, O’Brien, and Wargalla testified in person, and author Naomi Wolf read written testimony on behalf of Jonsdottir, who had been cautioned against traveling to the US due to her involvement with Wikileaks. Much of the case rests of the definition of “associated forces” – or lack thereof – since under the NDAA the military can indefinitely detain anyone it suspects has “substantially supported” al-Qaida, the Taliban or “associated forces.”

In a press release put out by The Sparrow Project, Hedges said: “I have had dinner more times than I can count with people whom this country brands as terrorists. But that does not make me one.” Given the possible broad interpretation of “associated forces” journalists such as Hedges – as well as activists and protesters – now operate under threat of possible detention without due process. However, to win the right to continue the court action, the judge has to agree that at least one of the seven plaintiffs has established a “reasonable fear” of being detained for exercising their constitutionally protected right to free speech.

During a press conference held outside the court at 2.30 PM on Thursday, Bolen made the following powerful statement in support of the Freedom Seven’s action:

“The NDAA is an egregious assault on our civil liberties…I approached Chris Hedges and asked him to amend his lawsuit to be a multi-plaintiff suit because the NDAA covers all kinds of people from around the world, and the seven of us who started this suit all feel we are in imminent danger under this law…

“I started an organization called Revolution Truth, and we’ve conducted campaigns in defense of Wikileaks and Bradley Manning. We also are an alternative media organization. We host livestreaming panel discussions with people from around the world. We were about to embark on a panel series with Middle Eastern revolutionaries and activists, including members of Hamas and other people [from] whom we want to hear about their ideas about the word ‘terrorism’ and the US government’s War on Terror…

“But we frankly were an international all volunteer group of about 25 people, and none of us feel safe in engaging in the work we normally do as journalists and activists. Under the NDAA we actually feel we are in danger, so we suspended our panel series for the time being. Furthermore, I’ve worked directly with some Wikileaks staff…and from the moment I began speaking with Wikileaks I was warned that all my communications would henceforth be routed through the NSA. This happened about a year ago. It’s something I’m used to at this point, but frankly with the confluence of factors and forces [of] the last 10 years of the laws, including the AUMF, the Patriot Act, and now the NDAA, I frankly don’t feel safe under my own government. I’m an activist, I’m a professional, I’m a Democrat, and I’m suing Obama over this…

“Our goal is to stop the unconstitutional provisions of this law, specifically sections 1021 and 1023, and to force the US government to better define its terms. Right now, it uses language in this law that is incredibly broad, and we consider very dangerous for not just this round of plaintiffs, but for all of us at some point. We actually think that the language of the law ultimately could be used against people like Occupy Wall Street and other protesters, so we’re determined to make sure our Constitution stands, and so does our Bill of Rights…I think we have a long uphill battle ahead of us. Obviously we’ve had 10 years of both Republicans and Democrats egregiously assaulting our liberties, so this is just the start…

“Chris Hedges filed this lawsuit because he spent 15 years working for the New York Times as a war correspondent. He’s personally interviewed members of Hamas and members of al-Qaeda, and the language of the law in sections 1021 and 1023 is so vague. It says “associated forces” and it talks about people who engage in hostilities against the United States. It doesn’t clearly define, as far as we’re concerned, “associated forces.” It leaves it so vague and broad that a journalist such as Chris Hedges, who meets with or gives a platform to people we, quote, call terrorists could end up being in trouble under this law…As far as we understand it, the language of this law contravenes three-quarters of the Bill of Rights and multiple Constitutional Amendments.”

During the press conference Wolf also spoke about the “chilling effect” the law is already having on the activities of journalists. She went on to say that her own activities had been directly curtailed, and that she had declined meetings with both Julian Assange and a group of former Guantanamo prisoners because of the threat posed by the NDAA.

Wargalla, who co-founded the Facebook and Twitter accounts that sparked Occupy London and was a key organizer of the subsequent encampments in the UK’s capital, then went on to explain that as an occupier she has already been defined as a member of a terrorist organization by law enforcement and government agencies. “We’re a peaceful and non-violent protest. Nevertheless the City of London police department put us on a list just under al-Qaeda saying that we were a terrorist organization,” said Wargalla. “I refuse to be silent and I refuse to be scared, and I would encourage everyone around the world to speak up and stand up against this law…If we don’t speak up now it may very well be too late.”

Civil rights activist Cornell West was in court to support the Freedom Seven, and also addressed the gathered press. If the group manages to establish legal standing, West hopes to sign on for the second round of action, which will be opened up to a larger pool of individuals who now operate under threat of the oppressive provisions of the NDAA. “You gotta keep track of this trial,” urged West. “Freedom is precious. If you don’t fight for it, you lose it.”

Reports from inside the courtroom can be found at Guardian.co.uk/, Courthousenews.com/ and Dissenter.firedoglake.com/.

Read the full text of the plaintiffs initial brief and the NDAA. For more information visit StopNDAA.org/.

by David Seaman

You’ve probably heard some grumblings in the social media world about the National Defense Resources Preparedness (NDRP) Executive Order which was released by the office of President Barack Obama on March 16th, 2012.

When discussion about the NDRP surfaces on Facebook, it’s usually only a matter of minutes before someone says, “This is bullshit! Obama would never do this!” and then links to the Snopes article that supposedly debunks what many believe are some frightening powers claimed by the President under the auspices of this Executive Order.

But you can’t debunk what is actually written, and what this Executive Order potentially does. It’s even posted on The White House’s website for all to see. A columnist at The Washington Times described the NDRP like so:

The document is stunning in its audacity and a flagrant violation of the Constitution. It states that, in case of a war or national emergency, the federal government has the authority to take over almost every aspect of American society. Food, livestock, farming equipment, manufacturing, industry, energy, transportation, hospitals, health care facilities, water resources, defense and construction…

In short, the order gives Mr. Obama the ability to impose martial law. He now possesses the potential powers of a dictator. The order is a direct assault on individual liberties, private property rights and the rule of law. It is blatantly unconstitutional.

Read the full text of the National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order and watch the video from Anonymous (posted below), which goes into detail about how the NDRP can requisition YOU involuntarily too! Make your own decision. And warn your friends and loved ones, if you feel the concerns are warranted.

[..]

There’s one group of people that has been strangely silent when it comes to the current War on Women, and more specifically legislation that requires women to have a state-mandated transvaginal ultrasound before an abortion. Before being allowed to practice, physicians take the hippocratic oath – a promise that they will do no harm. This politically driven policy clearly forces medical practitioners to violate that oath, since the procedure is invasive, uncomfortable, medically unnecessary, not to mention highly emotionally distressing for many women. Here, in a post that was first published on Whatever.scalzi.com, an anonymous doctor speaks out against what’s been dubbed “state-rape.” – Nicole Powers, SG Ed.

Where Is The Physician Outrage?

by An Anonymous Doctor

Right. Here.

I’m speaking, of course, about the required-transvaginal-ultrasound thing that seems to be the flavor-of-the-month in politics.

I do not care what your personal politics are. I think we can all agree that my right to swing my fist ends where your face begins.

I do not feel that it is reactionary or even inaccurate to describe an unwanted, non-indicated transvaginal ultrasound as “rape”. If I insert ANY object into ANY orifice without informed consent, it is rape. And coercion of any kind negates consent, informed or otherwise.

In all of the discussion and all of the outrage and all of the Doonesbury comics, I find it interesting that we physicians are relatively silent.

After all, it’s our hands that will supposedly be used to insert medical equipment (tools of HEALING, for the sake of all that is good and holy) into the vaginas of coerced women.

Fellow physicians, once again we are being used as tools to screw people over. This time, it’s the politicians who want to use us to implement their morally reprehensible legislation.

They want to use our ultrasound machines to invade women’s bodies, and they want our hands to be at the controls. Coerced and invaded women, you have a problem with that? Blame us evil doctors. We are such deliciously silent scapegoats.

It is our responsibility, as always, to protect our patients from things that would harm them. Therefore, as physicians, it is our duty to refuse to perform a medical procedure that is not medically indicated. Any medical procedure. Whatever the pseudo-justification.

It’s time for a little old-fashioned civil disobedience.
Here are a few steps we can take as physicians to protect our patients from legislation such as this.

1. Just don’t comply. No matter how much our autonomy as physicians has been eroded, we still have control of what our hands do and do not do with a transvaginal ultrasound wand. If this legislation is completely ignored by the people who are supposed to implement it, it will soon be worth less than the paper it is written on.

2. Reinforce patient autonomy. It does not matter what a politician says. A woman is in charge of determining what does and what does not go into her body. If she WANTS a transvaginal ultrasound, fine. If it’s medically indicated, fine… have that discussion with her. We have informed consent for a reason. If she has to be forced to get a transvaginal ultrasound through coercion or overly impassioned argument or implied threats of withdrawal of care, that is NOT FINE.

Our position is to recommend medically-indicated tests and treatments that have a favorable benefit-to-harm ratio… and it is up to the patient to decide what she will and will not allow. Period. Politicians do not have any role in this process. NO ONE has a role in this process but the patient and her physician. If anyone tries to get in the way of that, it is our duty to run interference.

3. If you are forced to document a non-indicated transvaginal ultrasound because of this legislation, document that the patient refused the procedure or that it was not medically indicated. (Because both of those are true.) Hell, document that you attempted but the patient kicked you in the nose, if you have to.

4. If you are forced to enter an image of the ultrasound itself into the patient chart, ultrasound the bedsheets and enter that picture with a comment of “poor acoustic window”. If you’re really gutsy, enter a comment of “poor acoustic window…plus, I’m not a rapist.” (I was going to propose repeatedly entering a single identical image in affected patient’s charts nationwide, as a recognizable visual protest…but I don’t have an ultrasound image that I own to the point that I could offer it for that purpose.)

5. Do anything else you can think of to protect your patients and the integrity of the medical profession. IN THAT ORDER. We already know how vulnerable patients can be; we invisibly protect them on a daily basis from all kinds of dangers inside and outside of the hospital. Their safety is our responsibility, and we practically kill ourselves to ensure it at all costs. But it’s also our responsibility to guard the practice of medicine from people who would hijack our tools of healing for their own political or monetary gain.

In recent years, we have been abject failures in this responsibility, and untold numbers of people have gleefully taken advantage of that. Silently allowing a politician to manipulate our medical decision-making for the purposes of an ideological goal erodes any tiny scrap of trust we might have left.

It comes down to this: When the community has failed a patient by voting an ideologue into office…When the ideologue has failed the patient by writing legislation in his own interest instead of in the patient’s…When the legislative system has failed the patient by allowing the legislation to be considered… When the government has failed the patient by allowing something like this to be signed into law… We as physicians cannot and must not fail our patients by ducking our heads and meekly doing as we’re told.

Because we are their last line of defense.

Reprinted with the kind permission of John Scalzi at Whatever.scalzi.com.